Gun Control Debate Finally Settled: It Doesn't Work

Gun Control Definitively Proven a Failure, Debate Finally Over

In light of the recent strategy involving yet another school shooting and yet another balls-to-the-wall effort from democrats to exploit the tragedy to advance their gun control agenda, the debate has reared its ugly head once again for the first time since the 2004 election cycle.

Following a NOLA.com story involving yet another Tulane University student being robbed at gunpoint (thank God at least this time the victim was male, and there was no rape accompanying the armed robbery, as is typically the case), a former Tulane student who was enrolled in late 2003 and early 2004, a time period during which rapes and armed robberies of (mostly) female students walking home (or to their vehicles) from campus had reached epidemic proportions, dared to speak out against the violence against women by way of an editorial published in The Hullabaloo, the Tulane student newspaper suggesting his theory as to why so many students were being violently attacked while leaving campus.

His theory: a campus-wide firearms ban prevented students from adequately defending themselves in one of America's most dangerous cities, and one in which the criminals are keenly aware of the fact that these campus-wide gun-free zones exist. He went on to suggest that unless the university did away with the policy either voluntarily or following litigation initiated by the victims of these crimes seeking monetary compensation sufficient to account for damage to person and property, as well as punitive damages; the trend would only continue. He was right.

The week following the debut of his editorial appearing in the Hullabaloo, the paper received a record number of submissions of what ultimately were better classified as hate mail rather than legitimate letters-to-the-editor attempting to refute the student's editorial appearing the week before. An editor for the paper at the time all this was going on reportedly told the student that the paper received more than 600 total letters in response, and 450 or so by the deadline for print the following week. The overwhelming majority contained language rendering them unsuitable for print.

The week following the student's letter suggesting the gun ban on campus was if not the problem at the very least counter-productive towards any viable solution, the Hullabaloo devoted its entire op/ed page to the least vulgar of the letters written in response, published under a page-wide headline at the very top reading "Re: Peter Egan Jr".

Obviously, Kira McAllister, one of the students whose retort was published the following week, had never been raped while walking home from campus. She suggested better alternatives such as traveling in groups. Oddly enough, in an email exchange that ensued, Ms. McAllister denied Mr. Egan's request for accompaniment on his own walk home from class.

Well, with the issue back in the news both because if the attack on the Tulane student, the recent school massacre and the regime's efforts at removing the final obstacle barring the implementation of a full-fledged totalitarian police state, the story resurfaced. First, it appeared on the personal blog of the pro-women's rights student, Peter Egan. Later, a scaled-down version appeared at a social news site called Thruzt, a link to which later appeared on Facebook. It was in this Facebook status update containing the link to the story at Thruzt in which the debate was finally settled decisively, definitively and once-and-for-all.

In the follow-up post to this one, the debate that ensued will be published in its entirety for all to see. In it, each and every argument in any way related to the issue came up and was settled in favor of the pro-freedom crowd --- and by a wide margin at that. Each and every argument used to support arguments in favor of gun control was surgically dismantled with a degree of precision not seen in political communication since the heyday of Ronald Reagan.

In any case, the merits of the issue have now been decided. Anyone who wishes to may see for him or herself the extent to which from a debate standpoint, this one was quite the blowout. Anyone who believes in gun control can easily access facts that more than adequately refute the agenda-driven "studies", illogical and fallacious arguments used to support the systematic dismantling of arguably the most critical component of any free society.

After reading the entire conversation, the only way one could still support gun control is through either A) Blind Faith; B) Belligerence; or C) A desire to disarm the civilian population of a free society in order to transform it into a totalitarian state in which only police are permitted to possess weapons.

Here is the argument that decisively won the gun control debate: http://lamesubdomain.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-discussion-that-won-gun-control.html

Fat Lester Formally Endorses Newt Gingrich

The campaign of former House Speaker and current GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich received a major boost today when internet / social media extraordinaire Fat Lester officially endorsed the former Congressman from Georgia.

Fat Lester, whose real name is Peter Egan, had not previously endorsed a candidate, citing favorable views of numerous candidates early on in the GOP nominating contest, along with the fact that he personally knows more than one of the candidates originally in the race as reasons for refraining from issuing an endorsement.

(Newt Gingrich consults with NOLA Tea Party leaders including Fat Lester)

However, when Herman Cain announced that he was suspending his campaign in light of a series of frivolous, racially-motivated attacks by several women on the left who were allegedly paid millions combined in exchange for levying the false and defamatory charges. Needless to say, these women were acting on behalf of the Obama Administration/Campaign (they're one-in-the-same), including at least one Obama Administration employee and the next-door neighbor of Obama's speech writer, it left Gingrich as the only candidate in the race with whom Lester has spoken with at length and in person regarding the challenges facing the country and the solutions required to get the nation back on the right track.

(GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich and Right-Wing Conspirator Fat Lester)

That said, personal affiliation with a candidate was not the sole criteria upon which Lester based the decision. Lester is also a strong supporter of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and identifies with Santorum's views on most issues, in particular the one nobody likes to talk about: the "A-word".

(Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich introduces himself to the VRWC)

This conflict made endorsing a candidate difficult even after Cain, whom Lester had helped raise funds via a Tea Party Rally with over two thousand attendees (back before he'd even announced he was running) at which Cain was the keynote speaker; announced that his campaign was effectively over and that he (Cain) would be endorsing Gingrich. However, after three states have held their nominating contests, with Santorum's victory in Iowa failing to translate into momentum going forward, Lester decided Gingrich is the candidate most likely to defeat Obama in a 1-on-1 match-up due to his unnaturally high IQ (he must have 50 IQ points over Obama and no less than 120 over former Speaker Nancy Pelosi) as well as his superior debate skills.

(Naturally, the media was not invited to the closed-door session)

While Fat Lester had speculated back in June that Gingrich may ultimately represent the Republican Party's best shot at victory in 2012, he had withheld making an endorsement so early on in the campaign for obvious reasons, some of which are stated above.

Lester is not going to merely informally endorse the former Speaker by issuing a public announcement on one of his blogs. Rather, he will be putting his money (something he has very little of) where his mouth is, and will be making a financial contribution to both Gingrich and Santorum's respective campaigns, with Gingrich receiving roughly twice the amount that will be given to Santorum. Should the latter win any more states or do anything else that results in his building of momentum with the majority of states yet to vote, he will likely receive additional funding from Lester proportionate to any progress he makes in terms of gaining ground on Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

(Newt Gingrich thanks Fat Lester for his advice and endorsement)

Fat Lester would like to encourage anyone and everyone reading this who cares about the general welfare of the United States of America to do likewise and make a donation to the Gingrich campaign using the link below. He would like for you to do this regardless of who you are, what your party affiliation is or which candidate you're supporting. Anyone can donate, regardless of one's income.

DONATE TO NEWT'S CAMPAIGN

America's Next President Poses with Fat Lester's Sister

If Fat Lester can come up with $100 spread out over a few months, so can you. It's time we take our country back, and we're going to need everyone to chip in whatever they can in order to save the nation.

The most important people were seated closest to the candidate

Another four years of Obama holding the office of the Presidency, and the United States will look more like Cuba than the prosperous one-time superpower where anyone who was willing to work hard could achieve success not attainable in most places throughout the world.

Fat Lester believes Newt Gingrich is the candidate with the best chance to take in 57+% of the vote required to win after the millions of fraudulent votes that will be cast by democrats are accounted for. In swing states, the real number needed to win could reach as high as 63-64%. In order to win this election, we will need to get 100% of the eligible voters in this country who want to preserve the freedom, prosperity and opportunity for which America was founded and will always be remembered (in the event Obama wins and the nation is disassembled or integrated into a North American Union). In order to do that, we will need to contribute whatever we can without losing our homes or failing to put food on our respective tables.

Please donate to Newt's campaign. If you support Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, donate to them as well. Fat Lester will be donating $120, $80 to the Gingrich campaign and $40 to the Santorum campaign. Please make one sacrifice on an item you can live without (as long as it's not something you're considering buying from Fat Lester or his affiliated businesses ;-), and instead use that money to help defeat the great American Saboteur-in-Chief.

---

On a totally separate note, it appears Mitt Romney's got some problems on the horizon:

Why I Will NOT Be Voting for Ron Paul in the GOP Primary

The only way he'd get my vote is if his opponent were Barack Obama, and even then I'd pull the lever holding my breathe that those classified security briefings he'd receive would bring about a 180 in terms of his foreign policy views and initiatives.

The one area which the United States federal government has undisputed constitutional authority to spend taxpayer money is on the military and defense, and Congressman Paul's foreign policy views are simply too wrong for me to vote for him against any other Republican.

Ron Paul and the other GOP candidates for President debate

I like Ron Paul. I'd like him w whole lot better if is position on foreign policy and the role of the United States military in maintaining global order while eliminating threats to the Constitution and the republic wasn't so badly skewed.

The thing about him that is so maddening is that on just about every single issue foreign policy excluded, he is right-on-the-money, and towers over the other candidates in the GOP primary in terms of his positions on the issues and his rationale for said positions. However, when it comes to foreign policy, Rep. Paul has convinced me that were he to be elected President, he'd either very quickly realize how wrong he has been all these years in light of the classified security briefings new Presidents receive; or he'd transition the United States into a new Russian territory (like Cuba, for example).

It's easy for Americans to get caught up in an illusion that lends to a belief that the world is run by sane, rational and civilized people who share the values most Americans hold dear. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case.

Communism will always be a threat to this or any republic. The only thing standing in the way of another world war that would make the previous two pale in comparison in terms of the devastation it would unleash is the United States military, and the brave men and women who serve our country and defend our constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Rep. Paul's stated desire to adopt an isolationist foreign policy while slashing the size and potency of the military, including but not limited to the withdrawal of troops from strategic locations around the world, is what makes him a dangerous candidate, and one for whom I would not vote unless I had absolutely no other choice (meaning if he were to actually win the 2012 GOP nomination).

Since Herman Cain dropped out of the race, I have yet to formally endorse a candidate, but plan to do so in the near future in an upcoming post.

Help Restore Louisiana's Wetlands & Coastal Ecosystem

I recently created a petition to the United States Congress (House and Senate) and the U.S. President, asking the respective bodies and the individuals in positions of leadership within those respective bodies to please commit to restoring Louisiana's wetlands and coastal ecosystem.

You can read (and sign) the petition here:  https://www.change.org/petitions/restore-louisianas-wetlands-and-coastal-ecosystem

I would very much appreciate it if anyone and everyone reading this would take just a moment to check out the petition, and if you agree with it, please also sign it. It's pretty hard to envision a scenario in which anyone would have any major objections to this goal.

Change.org|Start an Online Petition »

Wishful Thinking: The Anti-Soros

The Emergence of the Anti-Soros

As much as I'd like to say otherwise, I am not aware of anyone who appears to be maneuvering him or herself such that one day that person could serve as a counter-influence and check on George Soros' power. Not even myself :-( . Hey, a guy can have dreams though, right?

I'm going to divulge little bit about myself here for those of you readers visiting this blog for the first time, or who are simply unfamiliar with me in general, and thus are unaware of the context most readers of this blog know by way of past experiences with me.


I work about 80 hours a week on average, and sometimes more. Sure, I would like to one day be as wealthy as George Soros. While I have no doubt that should I achieve my financial goals or anything even close, I would thoroughly enjoy the money (a yacht with a harem of topless women feeding me grapes and strawberries in the Caribbean sun comes to mind), the primary reason I strive for such riches is so that I can become - for lack of a better term - the Anti-Soros.


Please do not mistake me for believing I am or ever could be Jesus Christ or his reincarnation (or ever be even 1/7777777 the man he was and is). That said, if I were to do as much good in the world as one would have to accomplish in order to earn even remote consideration for a title such as the "Anti-Soros", I'd feel much better about my chances for receiving forgiveness for my own worldly sins, which are many.


That said, I'm not an evil person, and I do have a good heart, flawed as I am. It would be nice though to be able to invest $10,000,000 into developing SmokersVote.org (a yet-to-be-established political PAC I intend to develop into an organization that at this point would best be described as the "NRA of and for Tobacco", as well as anyone else who believes in freedom-of-choice and personal responsibility.


It would also be nice to be able to take $500,000,000 and donate it to the campaign fund of GOP Presidential frontrunner Herman Cain using anonymous overseas donations of less than $200 (which is how Soros circumvented U.S. campaign finance law when he contributes roughly half of Obama's 2008 war chest).


I'd love to be able to contribute millions of dollars to Pro-Life candidates for the Unites States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate and state Governorships in hopes that someday, the right side will finally win large enough majorities in the federal lawmaking chambers and/or win the governorships of enough states to either have a law made outlawing abortion outright, have the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the unprecedented historical tragedy of Roe v. Wade, and/or accomplish the same end by way of a Constitutional amendment (which if my memory serves me correctly would require 37 states to sign on).


I'd thoroughly enjoy buying or founding my own nationwide and/or worldwide newspapers, cable networks and institutions for higher learning --- even if the investments yielded a perpetual negative return monetarily speaking which of course I would be easily able to sustain given my wealth --- for the sole purpose of attempting to revive the terminally ill profession of news and journalism, and bring it back to the fundamentals of Who, What, Where, When, Why and How, with the facts of the stories being covered actually being factual in nature, with personal and political opinions confined to the OP/ED page.


My schools would teach history (which has been absent from course curricula in America for generations across all levels of the education/propaganda system). For example, in Econ 101 at UFL (University of Fat Lester), students would be asked to write their final term paper on John Maynard Keynes and his theories regarding economics. Students who would fail to point out in said term paper the fact that "Keynesian Economics", while fundamentally-sound on its surface and in theory, and perhaps even altruistic in nature in terms of the motivation underlying Keynes' thinking (and that of the political figures throughout history who have applied Keynes' economic principles), has failed miserably in each and every single example of its actual application as a mechanism for economic planning and governance, would receive an "F" for the paper and no credit for the course.


Nature's Law of Supply and Demand would be introduced in elementary school and would be a yearly recurring theme until high school, during which it would be taught in Physics class as well as in Biology, Civics and American History. The reason being that Supply and Demand is every bit as much of one of the few natural laws which govern the universe as are the Law of Gravity and the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. The only difference between the laws from the standpoint of a physicist is that the latter two require no life, while the former must have life present in order to be applied and recognized. It is a common misnomer that the Law of Supply and Demand is exclusive to human society. In fact, this is the law that governs all life on earth, from the tiniest single-cell organisms to the most complex beasts nature has to offer, and everything in between.


Evolution is fueled by Supply and Demand. As environmental conditions (including supplies of food and the demand thereof - i.e. "competition") change over time, life forms (including plants, animals, bacteria and so forth) either evolve so as to continue to survive in an ever-changing environment or become extinct. It is this, the most natural of all the laws which govern nature and the natural world, from which the economic system known as Capitalism is modeled. Obviously, Capitalism must be slightly modified to meet the needs of a civilized human society (you can't just kill your next-door neighbor and steal his potatoes because you're hungry). However, in terms of its viability as a system providing all of the necessary components for long-term success and prosperity for nearly all involved parties - including but not limited to its own built-in system of checks-and-balances - it is unparalleled. This is especially true when compared directly with the system envisioned by Keynes, which contradicts virtually every aspect of human nature, and --- dare I say --- nature itself.


Students attending the schools and universities controlled by my hypothetical future money would be taught facts like these beginning at an early age. A tremendous emphasis would be placed on teaching students how to think (for themselves) as opposed to what to think (as most schools and universities are oriented toward). However, students who reject indisputable fact and fail to substantiate their dissenting position(s) with a logical argument that exposes one or more flaws in the established thinking would be required to spend additional time learning the principles of logic, reason and critical thinking - perhaps the most glaring deficiency of all in today's American education system, which for the past 70 years or so has been unanimously dominated by the liberal establishment (with substantial influence and significant contributions by the Soviet KGB - * see video at bottom of page if you decide to click the link).

How Evil is George Soros?

Is George Soros the world's most evil man? The question relates to and includes women too, for whatever it's worth. I have my reasons for phrasing it in an exclusively male context (If you must know... In all seriousness, does anyone really believe that any woman who is not an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend --- your ex-wife or girlfriend to be specific, not just anyone's --- could be more evil than the world's most evil man? . . . I didn't think so).

Is he (Soros) even evil to begin with? Or, is it possible for a person to be as genuinely confused about right-and-wrong as Uncle Soros would have us all believe is the case with himself?

The question unfortunately begs numerous other questions best left to a theologian to answer. Some of these include:

• What is evil?
• Is evil defined by actions, behaviors, words, beliefs and/or some combination thereof?
• Who is to say what is evil?
• Is morality relative? What about ethics?
• Is it possible that some people who are born with fully functioning brains and organs lack what most of us would refer to as a conscience?
• Who am I to judge ("Judge not, lest thee be judged")?
• Can evil exist without the existence of God (a question for athiests and agnostics, obviously)?
• Does evil exist period?

Is there a certain threshold as to what constitutes evil in any sense (actions, thoughts, behaviors, etc.), or is whether or not something "is evil" determined on a case-by-case basis? If so, by whom (another question for non-believers, who for the record I am not judging in any way, shape, manner or form, and against whom I have not one iota of angst)?

I'm not going to attempt to answer any of those questions, but for those who wish to delve into them further, I will provide to the resources I utilize to help wrap my mind around these concepts:

• Regarding Moral Conscience
• Regarding Good and Evil
• Regarding the Nature and Sources of Morality
• Regarding Sin

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other person that is alive at present that I'd consider to be "more" evil than George Soros, at least according to my understanding of evil*. And yes, that includes serial killers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro (whom I'm still 98% certain died in 2007 or 2008, but is still "officially" alive, so he's included here for the purposes of conversation).
In the case of Ahmadinejad, while he may aspire to kill more Jews than Hitler himself was responsible for murdering, he lacks the capacity to single-handedly orchestrate such a massacre, and could only succeed in doing so with significant help from George Soros --- which he has gotten. That said, Soros has the ability to put a stop to the nutjob in Iran if he wished to do so. Unfortunately, he does not, and in fact has been an integral part of Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons, not to mention the fact that for at least the past three years, Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without a hitch, but with the blessing of the U.S. Commander in Chief, who as we all know was hand-picked by Soros, who propagandized America for long enough to get him elected. Not that he really needed to, Soros' SOS Project (SOS is an acronym for Secratary of State, which makes the complete name of this sinister undertaking by George Soros the Secretary of State Project) has been such an unprecedented success that Obama would only have needed to win about 35% of the popular vote in any of the states he won in order to "win" those states.

For anyone unfamiliar with the SOS Project, Soros funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into statewide elections for the position of Secretary of State. He did this across the entire United States. The mission behind Project SOS is to ensure that in any election between a democrat and a Republican in which the statewide demographics are such that a democrat victory would be anything less than proposerous to even conceive of --- meaning that a vast majority of the voting population would be less than 100% certain of a fraudulent outcome should the democrat emerge on top --- that the democrat wins each and every one of those elections regardless of what it takes to meet those ends.

The responsibilities of the Secretary of State on a statewide level are far different than the position at the federal level. For states, the SoS's job is typically to oversee business and corporate filings, and to manage and coordinate elections for each given state. Relative to any other position in a typical U.S. state government, the SoS has the most power to illegally influence the outcome of an election in a variety of ways, and Soros' minions have figured out all of them, mastering most in the process.

Take the 2010 Nevada election for U.S. Senate between Harry Reid (who has been termed the "Second-Most Evil Man in America") and Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle. All of the polls leading up to and even on election day (exit polls in the case of election day itself) showed Angle with a comfortable lead ranging from 3.5 - 5.5 percentage points. Not a blowout by any stretch of the imagination, but outside the margin of error for all but a few of the more obscure polls that were released. Nevada's Secretary of State, who was effectively appointed by Soros via the SOS Project, contracted with --- of all people --- the SEIU (an uber-liberal, proactive democrat PAC. The name is an acronym for the Service Employees International Union) to manage, maintain and perform "maintenance" on Nevada's electronic voting machines.

This directly resulted in two (2) different types of election fraud. Not surprisingly, both just "happened" to work to Harry Reid's advantage. The two different forms of mass election fraud from Nevada's 2010 race are:

1. Thousands and perhaps even tens of thousands of the machines were pre-programmed to cast votes for Harry Reid. Upon each vote being registered and the voting form cleared for the next voter, the device was set to vote for Harry Reid by default!! Wait, it gets worse. When intelligent and informed voters with stable minds went in to cast their ballots, hundreds of voters observed their vote for Sharon Angle switched at the last second by the machine. The switch occurred after the voter had pressed the "cast ballot" button, but was apparently visible for just long enough for several hundred voters to take notice. We can only guess at how many hundreds or thousands just pressed the button and left the polling place, never even stopping to consider that a United States Senator would resort to such scandalous and illegal tactics for the purpose of subverting the democratic process and the will of the people.
2. In heavily democratic precincts (those most predictable and most likely to favor Reid over Angle by a wide margin based on demographics and past voter behavior alone), numerous precincts submitted more votes than there were registered voters residing within and/or registered to vote within the precinct. For anyone wondering how that happens, there are two scenarios that in all likelihood both occurred. The first involved the same people voting more than once. It's no secret that this goes on in every election involving a democrat without exception, and has ever since the days when the democrat party was heavily aligned with the Klan (sadly, not much has changed on that front), with both organizations' (the democrats and the KKK) primary objective being the subversion of the rights of black U.S. citizens. The second scenario us unfortunately also fairly common in elections involving democrats. This latter scenario involves union thugs simply pulling the lever over-and-over again for Reid after the polls had closed.

When all was said and done, Harry Reid was "reelected" by a slim margin. TRANSLATION: Sharon Angle won the election by 6-10 percentage points, but Reid was reelected anyway due to the rampant fraud that occurred, which was on display for all to see, and of which little attempt was made by the guilty parties to conceal the sinister actions and intents. With a so-called Department of Justice that is in cahoots with Reid, Obama and the democrats, it came as little surprise that there was no federal investigation into these widely documented reports and claims, for which the evidence is so readily available one could fill the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans with all the witnesses and documents supportive of the allegations.

The point of this story is that none of this (Harry Reid's fraudulent reelection) would have been possible if it weren't for a Hungarian-born devil of a man by the name of George Soros.

VIDEO: George Soros Discussing China's
Role in the New World Order





* NOTE: For the purposes of discussion and debate, I am obviously taking a leave of absence from my usual approach of deferring judgment to someone I deem more qualified than myself to judge other human beings (that would be God, for those of you in Eugene, Oregon).

The Best Job in America: Professional Democrat Voter

The United States Ministry of Truth on Saturday released a new report confirming what nearly half of all Americans already knew: That professional democrat voters have the best and most fulfilling job in America. The study observed nearly 300 million Americans over a period of 32 months, and concluded that professional democrats have the best job in the nation by a wide margin.

While at first the results seemed perplexing to some, that's just because they're either Republicans or Tea Baggers, and in either case are too stupid to comprehend the results of the study.

One great example to illustrate why democrat voter is overwhelmingly the best job in America is the Occupy Wall Street movement. By now, we're all familiar with the professional democrat voters who have been occupying the Manhattan thoroughfare. It's no coincidence that Wall Street makes up one of the largest and wealthiest collection of uber-rich crony capitalists who in the months and years leading up to the 2008 election funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Pinocchiobama in an effort to buy the 2008 presidential election. The most significant impact Wall Street's money laundering machine has had on the NYSE's phony occupiers is that by doing its part to get Pinocchio in the White House, the Occupy Wall Street protesters were granted their wildest wet dream in being awarded the right to work for the next four years as professional democrat voters.

With Pinocchiobama's victory, the Occupy Wall Street protesters and slothful drug addicts across the fruited plain won the right to work as professional democrats for the next four years. They were guaranteed a full-time salary for no less than three years (a time period the President of the United States is fighting tooth-and-nail to extend). The job title is somewhat of a misnomer, as the name for it is "unemployment benefits". Obviously, the term "unemployment" was meant to be interpreted in a figurative manner.

The benefits package offered by their new employer includes free food for the duration of their employment. They were issued company credit cards called SNAP, which is an acronym for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The credit cards can only be used for food and groceries, which has led to some controversy among professional democrats who are disgruntled over the fact that their company credit cards cannot be used to purchase illegal drugs.

The job comes with a number of benefits, including completely free healthcare and company-issued housing, which for some comes at a drastically-reduced rate well below market value, and for others is completely free-of-charge. (References: Section 8, Public Housing, Fannie May, Freddie Mac).

Professional democrats and their children also get free education from pre-kindergarten all the way through college.

In order to become a professional democrat, all a person (for lack of a better term) need do is vote for democrats in nationwide elections. While some may be inclined to write this off as an easy job, professional democrats aren't just expected to vote for democrats. They are expected to vote for democrats several times at several different polling locations on election day. This can be very hard work, especially when their government-subsidized vehicles (remember "Cash for Clunkers") run out of gas. The most outrageous part about this is that the company doesn't even reimburse for mileage, forcing some professional democrats to carpool or take public transportation to and from work.

All things considered, professional democrats have it pretty good. They get paid to work one day every two-to-four years, free food, free housing, discounted vehicles and all sorts of other perks. The job can be very stressful with all the hateful racist Teabaggers always criticizing their hard work, but in the end the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

So, if you're a child or adolescent who still isn't sure what you want to be when you grow up, you might want to take a look at becoming a professional democrat. With somewhere between 40% and 50% of Americans currently working as professional democrats, it is by far America's most popular profession. Once the Teabaggers and those stupid Republicans figure out how great it is to be a professional democrat, they'll want to jump on the bandwagon too, and America will finally be united as brothers in Marx.

Lazy 'Occupy Wall Street' Junkies Should Be Allowed to Starve (for the Good of the Country)

The lazy bums loitering in the streets of New York City (Wall Street, to be specific), Atlanta, GA, New Orleans, LA and other cities all across the United States, are an awfully pathetic bunch.  A loosely affiliated mixture of left wing radicals such as communists, anarchists, fascists and other sinister liberal groups, the one common trait shared by all of the Occupy Wall Street hooligans is that they would all prefer to spend their time "protesting" in the street against people who actually have jobs, work for a living and succeed, than get jobs themselves.  Their reason?  Because those people --- the evil Wall Street ne'er do wells --- have more money than they do.

They want everyone else to do all their work for them, as well as give them all the money the people who perform who work earn.  These people (OWS thugs) are a shining example of why food stamps should be done away with.  These lazy junkies should be allowed to starve if they aren't willing to support themselves.

Occupy Wall Street Protesters: Lazy and Stupid

The fact that we as taxpayers are subsidizing these slobs to the point they can afford to remain perennially unemployed, protesting the working man and going weeks in between showers.  They never brush their teeth, have no desire to fit in to society, much less have to work for a living.  Yet they're alive nonetheless.  They don't deserve to be alive, yet they are, and the sole reason is because working people continue to feed them.

It's time to let the monumentally lazy starve.  The benefits of doing so for the country are multi-fold.  First, some of them will eventually begrudgingly get jobs, accepting that the realization of their greatest fear (having to work) is still better than being dead.  This will add to the supply side of the labor equation, which in the macro picture will help to reduce the cost of employing workers for businesses.  When the cost of doing business goes down, businesses are more likely to succeed and by greater margins, which will go a long way toward helping to reverse the Obama recession.

Other communists and anarchists will stay true to their core laziness, opting to die a martyr rather than get a job.  This will reduce the number of democrat voters, which will make it harder for democrats to get elected, which will reduce their numbers in the House and Senate.  Less democrats in Congress means a fast economic recovery, further building upon the gains resulting from the reduced cost of doing business.

The elimination (or at minimum drastic reduction) of the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAPS, or "food stamps") will allow for all the billions of dollars required to feed the lazy to be used to help pay off America's debt, lowering interest rates and helping to curb the global financial panic.  This will help usher in a new period of stability in the global markets, and America will be the the leadership role of one of the greatest economic turnarounds in the world's history.

Obama's Troubles the Result of His Policies, Not His Approach

I recently came across a Bloomberg commentary piece written by a man named William Pesek. The article was loosely structured around a premise asserting that U.S. President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard have much in common.

While I do not necessarily dispute the premise in and of itself, the author's reasoning could not have been more off-the-mark. The main argument in the piece was that neither Obama nor Gillard are "radical" enough to overcome cynical detractors in opposition parties whose only goal is to derail the political ambitions of the two respective leaders.


The author cites GOP opposition to Obama's "Jobs Bill", in particular his unsubstantiated proposal to cut payroll taxes. What Pesek conveniently fails to mention are the accompanying tax and spending increases that render the proposal a net increase in the size and scope of the U.S. federal government.


The following passage from the article best synopsizes the author's misguided logic:

"The only answer for Gillard and Obama is to get radical -- be bold, think big and fight for your ideals. Neither leader seems set to do that, or able to sell their messages."

William Pesek obviously isn't all that attuned to U.S. politics. Obama is by far and without question the most radical president in the history of the United States. Republicans oppose his policies not because they want nothing more than to obstruct him, but because his policies are genuinely bad ideas that have already been tried (two stimulus bills, cash for clunkers, auto and bank bailouts, etc.). The reality is that to Obama, "economic stimulus" translates to "multibillion dollar slush fund for violent union thug donors".

He is the most hyper-partisan president in the nation's history, and indisputably the most corrupt --- and by a wide margin. Never before has a president tripled the nation's debt for no purpose other than to redistribute trillions of dollars in confiscated wealth to campaign donors and political allies. Obama has done so at the direct expense of the American economy.

Most Republicans are not saboteurs, and thus are not motivated to destroy the country and its economy. Anyone who doubts that Obama's treacherous policies and initiatives are designed to do just that is either naive or badly uninformed.

John Edwards Indictment Not Without Peculiarities

While scanning the news headlines this morning, I came across a story about the fiasco involving former Democrat U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards' ongoing federal indictment/prosecution. There was nothing in particular about the headline or story that raised my eyebrows. However, there is one key detail about the matter that is very peculiar to say the least.

Specifically, I am referring to the Democrats' history of defending their own against media scrutiny, and propensity to circle the wagons in defense of their own whenever one of them runs afoul of the law, voters, media, etc. To take it a step further, that the mainstream media (which we all know is effectively an extension of the Democrat Party) actively tried to cover up the story for so long indicates to me that there was most likely a request made by one or more high-ranking Democrats that the lurid details of Edwards' affair be kept secret - at least until after the 2008 elections.

Based on the history of similar events in years past, I am hesitant to believe that the Justice Department decided to go after Edwards on its own and without any prompting from someone within the current administration. Assuming that this is correct, it is likewise reasonable to assume that the person who ultimately gave the order was none other than President Obama himself, given that such a brazen request would not have been made by his cabinet without either a direct order from the President himself, or at the very least him signing off on the indictment and prosecution.

I can't help but wonder what Edwards did to piss off Obama, who by all accounts appears to be much more involved in micromanaging the Justice Department than any other President in recent memory. Could Edwards' prosecution be the result of unflattering comments made during the '08 Democrat primaries? Or was it something else potentially involving someone else?

If there's one thing we do know, it's that Democrats don't go after their own unless its personal or in some way related to the advancement of an agenda (such as the Democrat calls for Weiner to resign only came after his scandal kept the attention off of the Ryan Medicare plan for almost two weeks). In this case, there doesn't appear to be any legislative goal, which leads me to believe it is personal retaliation by Obama for some unknown slight.

Every mainstream media organization in America worked tirelessly to cover up the story of Edwards' infidelity for more than a year. They never did release the story. As I'm sure most of you recall, the National Enquirer broke the story after the NYT, LAT, USAT, WP, AP and all the others passed on the opportunity. That very fact alone suggests that somewhere along the way Edwards said or did something that angered Obama enough for him to seek retribution by way of a federal indictment.

Do you remember something that I may have forgotten regarding the relationship between the two men (Edwards and Obama)? If you have a theory about what former Senator John Edwards may have done to invite the wrath of Obama, please be sure to share it in the comments.

If you simply disagree with my theory regarding Edwards' indictment, please feel free to voice that (and/or any other sentiments you may have about the case) in the comments as well.

Obama to Blame for Food, Fuel Inflation

Wal-Mart CEO Bill Simon recently issued a dire prediction for the month of June. Specifically, Simon has gone on record and predicted that the long-anticipated inflation stemming from the Pelosi/Bush bailouts of 2008 and the Obama Stimulus will set in with a vengeance during the month of June.

Inflation is "going to be serious," according to Simon. "Except for fuel costs, U.S. consumers haven't seen much in the way of inflation for almost a decade, so a broad-based increase in prices will be unprecedented in recent memory."

There has been much talk in recent months over the prospect of food prices increasing dramatically. Food prices, like most other prices, are being driven up by inflation first and foremost.

What causes inflation?

Remember all those bailouts? Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus? All the money borrowed from China and printed by the U.S. Federal Reserve?

All of the above drastically increase the rate of inflation. Food and fuel prices are the first of which people take notice because they are commodities that everyone must buy. Most other prices lag behind because people can choose not to buy non-essential items, which causes retailers to lower prices in hopes of stimulating buying by the consumers. While the retailer is feeling the full effects of inflation, competition over marketshare prevents them from immediately passing it along to the consumer. Instead, they keep prices as low as possible for as long as possible in order to try to gain a few percentage points worth of their opponents' market share in hopes of converting that chunk of business into profit at a later date once the economy has recovered and consumer behavior has returned to its normal levels of activity.

That said, eventually retailers, grocers and the various other merchants will have to raise prices in order to meet their costs and hopefully earn a small margin (profit). When that happens, consumers will feel the full effect of the coming widespread inflation.

For a more in-depth explanation of the relationship between Obama's stimulus and inflation, check out this article, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in February of 2009.

Capybara, Would You Like to Explain This?

Is Capybara the Beast from the book of Revelation? His recent activity over at the Mixxingbowl seems to suggest so.

I was minding my own business, reading the news and occasionally commenting when I came across something disturbing while perusing through some of Capybara's submissions. Rather than describe to you what I saw, I included the screenshot below, in which you can see exactly what I saw when I happened upon a page I was never supposed to see.

FALSE ALARM:  Capybara was briefly considered a potential Antichrist suspect as a result of an apparent misunderstanding.

Needless to say, I was extremely alarmed upon seeing that, especially as Capybara has never shown any indication whatsoever for a capacity for evil, much less the potential for being the sinister villain from the final book of the Bible. I decided to double-check so as to be absolutely certain it was true before publicly levying the accusation.

I pulled up the official Antichrist Identification Device from Jaspax.com and ran the name. In a split-second, the suspense was over:

Capybara IS NOT the Antichrist.

We looked through 55 different calculations for the numerical value of "Capybara", but NONE of them were equal to the number of the beast. Congratulations!

I wasn't totally shocked by the result, but there was one detail over which I was puzzled. If Capybara isn't the Antichrist, why did his activity page at the Bowl boldly display the number of the beast? The only logical reason would be if the Mixxingbowl itself were some way tied to Prince of Darkness.

On a hunch, I decided to try running through a couple of names of people I knew are affiliated with the site. The results were predictable.

Gregory Davies IS the Antichrist!

Here's proof:

1. Write "Gregory Davies" as separate words.
2. Transliterate the result into Greek: γρεγωρι δαβηης. Numerical values for Greek letters are found here.
3. Alternately subtract and add the numerical values of the letters in each word, then take the absolute value of the result. Add together the numerical values of each word. This gives the following:
γ ρ ε γ ω ρ ι δ α β η η ς
( 3 - 100 + 5 - 3 + 800 - 100 + 10) + ( 4 - 1 + 2 - 8 + 8 - 6)
4. The result is 616! Did you know that in the earliest manuscripts of the Bible 616 is the number of the beast? It's true! Plus, wouldn't it make perfect sense for the Enemy to disguise his true face all these years by getting people to believe in the wrong Bible?

Don't be deceived! Now you have absolute PROOF that Gregory Davies is the Antichrist!

Spread the word! Click here to go to a linkable page, or copy and paste the following text into your webpage or blog to let everyone know that Gregory Davies is the Antichrist.
Mathematical proof that Gregory Davies is the Antichrist!

For anyone scratching their head, the aforementioned also goes by the name of cGt2099. It should come as no surprise Davies has emerged as a candidate/suspect to become the most evil person in all of religion. Back in 2009, he admitted/proclaimed as much when early rumors were beginning to surface.

So is cGt2099 the Antichrist? If only it were so simple.

At least two other names that have been widely rumored to be the Antichrist have been confirmed as such.  It is unclear at this point if Davies is in cahoots with Kevin Rose and Barack Hussein Obama as a sinister apocalyptic trifecta, or if the three must contend for the singular honor.

God did not respond to an email seeking comment about the Antichrist situation.

Atlas Shrugged the Movie (Part 1) Now Playing in Theaters

Part one of the Atlas Shrugged movie is now playing in theaters across the country.  I've been waiting a decade (since I first picked up the book) for this movie to debut.  And what do you know, but the timing of this movie's release couldn't have been any better.  Atlas Shrugged is the closest thing to an official Tea Party charter as exists, and with a looter government in Washington rapidly confiscating wealth by way of inflation (and taxes), but especially inflation, it almost seems as if this movie was more than a half century in the making by design.

In any case, I this will be the first movie I've gone to see at a theater since April of 2005.

The official movie trailer can be seen below.

Hermain Cain Meets Fat Lester

I had the honor and privilege of meeting 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain at a Tea Party event in Mandeville, LA a few weeks back. Mr. Cain was the keynote speaker at the event, which also featured contributions from New Orleans radio personality John Osterlind, St. Tammany Parish radio personality Jeff Crouere and distinguished gentleman and businessman John d'Hemecourt of Abita Springs.

[Photo: GOP Presidential Nominee Herman Cain visits with right-wing conspirator Peter Egan Jr., aka: "Fat Lester"]

Mr. Cain delivered an inspiring speech in which he laid out his philosophy as a candidate for the United States Republican Presidential Nomination in 2012. He spoke of the government's reckless and ever-growing irresponsibility, and promised that if chosen to represent the Republican Party in the 2012 Presidential Election, that he would be the candidate who finally reversed course in hopes of righting the ship. The question implicit in the words "in hopes of" is not whether or not Herman Cain possesses the ability to lead the country back to greatness, but whether or not the unprecedented spending and borrowing that has taken place since the Democrats seized the House in the 2006 mid-term elections in the face of an already massive debt (present BEFORE they took office - they've increased it by an average of $4.07 billion per day SINCE they gained control of Congress). Each year that Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House of Representatives the Congress set a new record for national debt. That rise has increased dramatically since the election of Barack Obama as President.

Mr. Cain's speech was not particularly heavy on policy or specific issues per se, as can be expected for what ultimately wound up being something of a quasi-announcement that he would seek the GOP nomination for the Presidency. While technically at the time of the event his now-campaign was simply announcing the formation of a "Presidential Exploratory Committee", he left little doubt that he planned to enter the Republican contest as something of a "dark horse" candidate (no pun intended).

[Photo: GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain addresses the crowd at a Tea Party event in Mandeville, Louisiana]

The fact is that Herman Cain is not a politician, and has none of the baggage that all career politicians who have been in Washington for any significant period of time bring with them. Perhaps most significantly, the reluctance to implement the "radical" changes (as Chuck U. Shumer and Dingy Harry like to say) necessary to ensure the long-term economic and financial viability of the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank id its currency. The reality is that the last President in recent memory to positively impact the state of the government had a successful career in the private sector before seeking the governorship of the only state where Hollywood icons have repeatedly contested for (and won) multiple terms as chief executive. Those that have followed (and those that preceded) him have been career public sector elected representatives whose idea of running a business involves laundering taxpayer money to campaign donors who then reinvest it in that Congressman or Senator's "business" ventures, and look where they've taken the country.

Of all the names mentioned so far as possible Republican Presidential contenders, with the exception of Donald Trump who is only putting on a show for the sake of publicity and who is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) at best, none can boast the kind of private sector or executive-level success and experience in general that Herman Cain has achieved. Cain, the son of working-class parents in Georgia, grabbed the American dream by the (fill-in your choice of body part). He knows what working people go through in life, knowledge foreign to far too many in the Washington establishment in both parties.

Finally, in Herman Cain Americans have an opportunity to vote for a black man for President of the United States, not because he's black and it's long-past time the country elected a person of color if for no other reason than to break the taboo, but because if his resume, his mammoth intellect and his charisma are any indication, there's a very strong probability that Herman Cain may very well be the best and most qualified man for the job.

I've now met three four of the top six or seven names being mentioned in association with the GOP Presidential nominating contest, albeit one has been mentioned only as a potential candidate for Vice President as he has repeatedly proclaimed that he planned to seek reelection to his state's governorship and would not seek the Presidency - at least not before his 42nd birthday. This Southern Governor only became eligible to run for the Presidency since the summer of 2006. Anyone not know to whom I am referring?

I know this has gotten a little bit off topic since this is a post about Herman Cain. However, this latter candidate whom I have refused to name (in this post - c'mon, you should know this one) presents a couple of very interesting dynamics as a potential VP consideration. First off, in the ostensibly unlikely event he should team up with Herman Cain, they would represent the first major-party non-white Presidential ticket in the nation's history. Second, should this person join up with another candidate such as say Newt Gingrich, whom I have also met during the SRLC last year (2010 for those of you in Rio Linda) when he consulted with myself and about two-dozen other Tea Party leaders in New Orleans about the prospect of a potential Presidential bid, it MIGHT present a scenario in which I could potentially vote for a different ticket IF the Herman Cain campaign had not won any primary contests before Louisiana's, MAY feel compelled to vote for a ticket other than Herman Cain's. Unless and until that happens, at this point, he's definitely got my vote in the Louisiana GOP Presidential Primary.

[PHOTO: (from left) Peter and Pamela Egan, Herman Cain and Fat Lester]

About Herman Cain (Source: Wikipedia)

Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American newspaper columnist, businessman, political activist, and radio talk-show host from Georgia. He is best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. He is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Cain's newspaper column is distributed by North Star Writers Group. He currently lives in the Atlanta suburbs.

Cain was born and raised in Georgia by working class parents. He earned a bachelor's degree in Mathematics at Morehouse College in 1967, and while working for the U.S. Department of the Navy, a master's degree in computer science from Purdue University.

After completing his master's degree, Cain left the Department of the Navy and began working for Coca-Cola as a business analyst. In 1977, he joined Pillsbury where he rose to the position of vice president by the early 1980s. He left his executive post to work for Burger King – a Pillsbury subsidiary at the time – managing 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under Cain's leadership, his region went from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable in three years. This prompted Pillsbury to appoint him president and CEO of Godfather's Pizza, another of their then-subsidiaries. Within 14 months, Cain had returned Godfather's to profitability. In 1988, Cain and a group of investors bought Godfather's from Pillsbury. Cain continued as CEO until 1996, when he resigned to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association – a trade group and lobby organization for the restaurant industry – where he had previously been chairman concurrently with his role at Godfather's.

Cain hosted The Herman Cain Show on Atlanta talk radio station News Talk 750 WSB, a CNN radio affiliate until February 2011 and serves as a commentator for Fox News Business and a syndicated columnist distributed by the North Star Writers Group. In 2009, Cain founded "Hermanator's Intelligent Thinkers Movement" (HITM), aimed at organizing 100,000 activists in every congressional district in the United States in support of a strong national defense, the FairTax, tax cuts, energy independence, capping and cutting government spending, restructuring Social Security, and defending the U.S. Constitution. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain